Oh no Apple deprecating codecs?
This from the internet below . . .
Is it time to think beyond apple and FCP? Buy the latest powerful MB Pro to work for another few years? I don’t really care except would rather not have to buy a new computer right now and/or switch back to Windows. This seems to have implications beyond FCPX. There's no Creative Cow forum for Mac OS video and I've been chastised for posting in FCPX since I don't use it. I’m the worried well ☺
Are we finally seeing real evidence of Apple preparing the road for an entirely new computer platform? Confusion reigns.
Apple recently published this page on its FCP X support site. It’s generated a bit of confusion among video professionals across forums and various user groups.
What is the most alarming aspect of the news update is that the document is unclear. It does not explicitly state why changes are going to be made, what those changes will be, and how it will impact the digital workflows currently in place today.
Final Cut Pro X and macOS are changing. With those changes existing Avid DNxHD / DNxHR, GoPro CineForm, and Sony HDSR media will no longer be compatible with Final Cut Pro X.
“Legacy media files are compatible with macOS Mojave,
but they won’t be with future macOS releases.”
One theory is that macOS will eventually remove 32-bit application support, and in turn existing 32-bit codec libraries will become incompatible. While that makes sense from an encoding standpoint, it raises more questions. A DNxHR file was encoded with a 32-bit library does not make the video output any different from a DNxHR file that was encoded with a 64-bit library. Furthermore, many of the compatible formats listed on Apple’s codec support site are far older than Avid DNxHR and even Sony HDSR.
Independent/personal/avant-garde cinema, New York City
I don't see this as anything shocking. Apple is finally shedding it's 32bit baggage and only supporting 64bit software. It's about time! Intel introduced the first 64bit processor in 2001... check your calendar... 17 years have gone by and we're still carrying around support for 32bit processors that no one has owned in over a decade!
What would be shocking is if Avid, GoPro, and Sony joined the 21st century and released 64bit versions of their codecs and THOSE did not work with macOS. Then I would panic! But the way I see it, it's just a wakeup call for everyone to finally get on the 64-bit band wagon before it turns 20 years old! lol
BTW, I did not upgrade my Mac Pro to High Sierra yet because I have several 32bit apps like DVD Studio Pro that I still use and need to continue to work (which work in Sierra but not High Sierra). So you always have the option of not upgrading.
totally agree with your assessment John.
[John Rofrano] "because I have several 32bit apps"
So, does this not undermine your own statement?
Next, how expensive would it be for Apple to create support for 32 bit apps? 100.000? 1 million? 10 million?
Even if it was 10 million, that would be (guessed) something like 1/2000 part (0.05%) of the desktop hardware turnover of one year. (And that is NOT apple's cash cow.)
So, money can't be the issue. (And apple had a similar program when they switched from Motorola to Intel.)
But, a lot of people like yourself have a lot of old stuff they want to continue to use. And it is no argument that updating is a choice, as Apple forces you to do so. On a phone not updating is just highly annoying and it will happen eventually when you make a tiny mistake, but on a desktop it is impossible when you need a new machine, as it will not run an older version of the OS.
So, IMHO, your arguments are void.
[Bouke Vahl] "So, does this not undermine your own statement?"No, it just means that I have a need to use software that is no longer offered. It is 32-bit because it is discontinued. That's very different that the codecs I was referring to which are still valid and current codecs that those companies are selling and they haven't bothered to upgrade them to 64-bit (which they will have to do now if they want those codecs to remain current)
[Bouke Vahl] So, money can't be the issue.That's correct. It's not a matter of money. It's a matter of trying to make old technology continue to work as you introduce new capabilities that just don't fit the old model. At some point, it is technically not possible to support the past and move forward at the same time. The software gets bloated with all the things it needs to do to remain backward compatible and at some point you cut the bloat and declare that the old technology isn't supported anymore.
[Bouke Vahl] "But, a lot of people like yourself have a lot of old stuff they want to continue to use. "Indeed, which is why I have 3 boot partitions: one for Sierra (which I'm about to upgrade), one for Yosemite (which is the newest OS that Pro Tools 11 will run on) and one for Snow Leopard (which I'm going to use with DVD Studio Pro so that I can upgrade my main partition to Mojave)
So, I don't see why you think my answer is void. The codecs are not old versions. They are current versions which are based on older technology and need to be updated to stay current. This is very different from continuing to use old software that is discontinued.
[John Rofrano] "It is 32-bit because it is discontinued."
Very strange logic...
[John Rofrano] " the codecs I was referring to which are still valid and current codecs that those companies are selling and they haven't bothered to upgrade them to 64-bit (which they will have to do now if they want those codecs to remain current)"
A codec has nothing to do with 32 or 64 bit operating systems. The same way as the strory in a book has nothing to do with the way it is printed. It is the encoding / decoding routine that needs to be implented. That was done inside QT, and Apple killed that.
Next, it is NOT up to the codec companies to do anything, as they cannot alter the OS / FCPX. It is Apple who needs to do it, or at least open up to other developers to give them the opportunity to do so. And they refuse.
[John Rofrano] "At some point, it is technically not possible to support the past and move forward at the same time."
Yes, but then explain, why can I still get fuel for ANY car EVER made?
Why can I call an ancient / antique phone on a landline from my cellphone? How come the copper from a landline is now used to transport analogue signals as well as my 200 Mb internet connection?
How come 4:3 black and white mono TV sets are still supported by all broadcasters, and their specs require you to keep them in mind?
You may be right that old stuff should die, but that point still is not now, that will take at least 10 years or perhaps way more.
[Bouke Vahl] "[John Rofrano] "It is 32-bit because it is discontinued."Let me state it the way I intended it... "it is 32-bit because it was discontinued at a time when 32-bit was all their was".. Not because the manufacturer did not upgrade it to 64 bit.
[Bouke Vahl] "A codec has nothing to do with 32 or 64 bit operating systems. "It does at the application level. If the codec is called by an application, it needs an application binding. If the application is 64-bit and the codec is 32-bit they cannot talk to each other unless the application provides backward compatible 32-bit binding support. This is the same reason why 32-bit audio VST's cannot load into a 64-bit DAW unless they provide some kind of backward compatible binding. This is where the problem lies.
[Bouke Vahl] "How come 4:3 black and white mono TV sets are still supported by all broadcasters, and their specs require you to keep them in mind?"For the same reason that HD TV's support interlaced video. Someone did not have the guts to drop interlace support when it was clearly not needed anymore. So day after day, young videographers ask the questions, "why are their lines in my video" and we have to remind them that back in 1920 (almost 100 years ago!!!) they couldn't get an election beam to excite the phosphorous on the cathode-ray tube fast enough so inventors came up with this ingenious idea to scan 1/2 the lines at a time and thus preserve the picture quality. And the young videographer should answer, "why should I care 100 years later?" ...and they should not have to! we should move on and let old technology that has outlived it's useful purpose die. But that's just my humble opinion.
BTW, TV is a bad analogy in the US because we banded the broadcast of analog signals and the US government even provided people with free analog-to-digital converters. If you have an old analog TV is is now useless without a digital converter box. Why? Because there was money to be made in selling the analog bandwidth!!! So I guess it's OK to kill old technology if you can make money off of doing so.
IMHO, a few years after the 64-bit processor was introduced, Microsoft and Apple should have stopped making 32-bit versions of their Operating Systems and all of this would have been solved. But they didn't. Would it have hurt? ...Did it hurt when Apple discontinued the floppy disk drive? Yup! Did it hurt when Apple discontinued the CD ROM drive? Yup. Did it hurt when Apple discontinued all external ports on their laptops except USB-C? Ouch!!! That one is still hurting BIG TIME! (says this 2018 MacBook Pro owner) ...but this too shall pass. 😉
Funny, I just saw this after updating Compressor today. So here is a screenshot from the latest Apple Compressor 4.4.2:
Compressor is finally 64-bit and so it "natively" won't load 32-bit codecs. Luckily, Apple is still providing a 32-bit binding for now. You can see the daemon running here in my gfxCardStatus app:
So Apple is simply declaring that it will no longer support the 32-bit daemon in future releases, and the codec developers need to jump on the 64-bit bandwagon.. Why? Who knows... maybe future GPU enhancements will make it impossible to maintain 32-bit compatibility? The point is that codec developers have had enough time to update to 64-bit. If they want to remain relevant they have no choice now.
re- read what I wrote. Others CANNOT as Apple wont let them. The source for DNxHD is open, but Apple chooses not to implement it.
Now, you can go torture yourself with a company that makes you hurt, I'm not that kind of guy.
[Bouke Vahl] "The source for DNxHD is open, but Apple chooses not to implement it."Why would they? They already have awesome intermedia codec (ProRes) that everyone uses. The short list of non-supported codecs (Avid DNxHD / DNxHR, CineForm, and Sony HDSR) is underwhelming. Most Apple editors use ProRes so this is really a non-issue unless you need to work with people on Windows who need to use DNx and CineForm because Windows doesn't have a good intermediary codec. I would not want Apple to waste any time worrying about Windows codecs.
[Bouke Vahl] "Now, you can go torture yourself with a company that makes you hurt, I'm not that kind of guy."No torture here. I'm not affected by this. Apple will still support all of these codecs:
That's not a trivial list. Most of my "old" footage is HDV and AVCHD which is still supported and newer codecs like AVC-ULTRA, XAVC , and HEVC are all supported.
You yourself made a nice list of things Apple did that hurt you. Ok, your pleasure.
And if you think it is a very good idea to have everybody use a propiatary codec that is NOT free, and be paid by everyoe someday, or just disappear cause someone does not think that Apple should be downwards compatible (yes, that does happen, remember...), have fun.
I for one think that open source is the way to go.
And now I'm done with this. You are the FaceBook abb that is no longer allowed here, I am the opposite.